Horton

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha.takeshi@jp.fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Date: 2017-12-01T05:19:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Unless there is disagreement on the above, it seems we should apply
>> Yura's patch (an edited version, perhaps).
>>
>
> IIRC the patches that makes the cleanup scan skip has a problem
> pointed by Peter[1], that is that we stash an XID when a btree page is
> deleted, which is used to determine when it's finally safe to recycle
> the page. Yura's patch doesn't have that problem?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3D1%3Dt5fcGGfarQGcAWBqaCh%2BdLMjpYCYHpEyzK8Qg6OrQ%40mail.gmail.com

The latest patch present on this thread does not apply
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c4a47caef28024ab7528946bed264058@postgrespro.ru).
Please send a rebase. For now I am moving the patch to next CF, with
"waiting on author".
-- 
Michael

Commits

  1. Fix upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

  2. Increase upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

  3. Fixes for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor GUC option

  4. Skip full index scan during cleanup of B-tree indexes when possible